Letters to the editor

Published: July 14, 2004 12:00 AM

Don't support religious dictatorshipEditor:I'd like to take a moment to flip the perspective of the federal marriage amendment proposed on the American Constitution.Let's note for example the U.S. Constitution clearly states this: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Now take into consideration that if this tidbit of information had been respected by our current dysfunctional president, the proposal of the amendment would have seemed preposterous.I am vaguely aware that 85 percent of Americans call themselves Christian; however, this would mean that 15 percent do not. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that George Bush fell into this 15 percent minority and proposed an amendment against the continuation of marriage because of the ever-increasing, family debilitating divorce rate. Since 15 percent of the population do not govern their lives by the doctrine of the holy Bible, I would have to say that the banishment of marriage altogether is completely plausible.How does this make you feel? Threatened? Would you consider this unconstitutional? Why? Perhaps that hypothetical scenario is a fine example of the unjust behavior and dictatorship directed toward the 80,000 gay families in America.The fact of the matter is that not everyone governs their life based upon Bible scriptures. If one is primarily concerned with protecting the "sanctity" of marriage, perhaps gay "union" should simply be labeled gay "union."Gay families do not care what you call it, they simply wish to acquire and honestly deserve the same benefits as a man and a woman united in love.Please don't participate in the encouragement of religious dictatorship in America. Please vote against judging others and fueling hate. Call your senators today. (202) 224-3353 and (202) 224-2315Tempest Kelly SutcliffeWoosterIt's the vandals who should payEditor:Greetings!! We are Bob and Rita Hart from Sterling who feel strongly to say any and all damages incurred from the vandalism acts should be paid for by those who did the damages. Yes, we are responsible for our actions "you break it, you pay for it" and since when should the public again have to pay for the inexcusable acts of those who delight in the destruction of anything? Want to get drunk, stay at home and destroy your own property!Bob and Rita HartSterling